There is a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
-- Edmund Burke
tolerant society has long been acclaimed as a righteous society. While most
social indoctrination is designed to foster this fanciful theme, few are
willing to ask or examine if this is a desirable goal. A valid conclusion
rests upon a correct definition of the nature of tolerance and how it applies
to natural arrangements and relationships among different groups. Here are
four options to consider:
1) the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions
2) willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others
3) a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior
4) a permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits
Which do you accept as the logical and judicious meaning for tolerance?
The chronological record suggests that history favors a world that conforms
to the first choice. Societies, races and cultures are different and seldom
harmonious. Nevertheless, it has been a goal of social engineers to perfect
human nature and renounce the reality of that nature. Enter the romantic
advocates that seek a playing field so level that everyone’s interests are
advanced by way of respecting all beliefs and any practice. But do they have
equal merit? The idealist claims unbound freedom is the answer - anything
can go in a truly tolerant turmoil. Finally, the realist - the most defamed
- offers the insight that self interest supersedes motives for contrived
The interpretation you accept is crucial to properly understand the conflict and intentions of social crusaders.
In a world that operates upon a foundation of distortion, it is easy for
the ingenuous to believe the con that is the official doctrine: PEOPLE are
EQUAL. If you are an imbecile, you will hold that the plight of the
inferior is your responsibility. The solution to rectify cultural deficiency
is to sacrifice your own dignity and merge your heritage by shedding those
qualities that create lasting achievements. Dumbing down is not enough; accepting
primitive ritual as coequal is required. If you resist this atonement adjustment,
your ability to overcome that nasty hate factor will necessitate additional
harsh persuasion. Your re-education program will feature a reorientation
degree with a major in Tolerance.
The institution for this advanced level of reprogramming might well be the
TOLERANCE.ORG. That’s an auspicious name for a Southern Poverty Law
Center project designed to enlighten the masses about the detestables. You
know them, for they are you . . . No less a figure than the dissimulator,
Morris Dees, will instruct you what hate is and why you are unworthy unless
you grant universal tolerance. Offered as a fringe benefit is a tracking
list for hate groups, yet to graduate from the course - denial in inequality.
Their standard holds that - “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that
attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable
characteristics.” In the Dees classroom there is no place for definition
No. 3 - a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior.
So is Dees a hero or a charlatan? You won’t examine his real record on the tolerance.org site.
"The problem is, voluminous records and testimony reveal that everything
Dees purports to despise... HE IS! And now, he is being judged
by his own judgments. His Southern Poverty Law Center is not Southern,
is a long way from the Poverty bracket and has nothing to do (really) with
Law. In reality his organization is better identified as the Center
Instead of fighting racism he creates it by publishing inflammatory books
which stir the pot of hatred among non-whites. And rather than targeting
only those who are truly hate-filled and who commit actual crimes, his wide
brush strokes across anyone who is a Christian, opposes the New World Order,
advocates the right to bear arms and especially, those who may know and teach
the true biblical identity of God’s covenant people known as Identity believers.
In short, he and his comrades create an atmosphere of fear and anger (the
very thing he accuses racist leaders of doing) but in his case, it is to
disguise their true mission to eliminate Christianity.
It’s hard to see the Dees mindset as conforming to definition No. 2 - willingness
to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others; for there is
no choice in his system of ‘TC’ Totalitarian Collectivism. Tolerance demands
Fascism to ensue open-mindedness.
So what’s left to define tolerance! No. 4 - a permissible difference; allowing
freedom to move within limits - distinguish that differences exist and that
accepting those variances recognizes that your allowance is essential. The
boundaries for accepting others is based upon your desire to include them
into your own community. Consequently, to achieve willful tolerance, discriminating
choice is necessary. For some, definition No. 1 - the power or capacity of
an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions - will apply.
Some may reject that option, but that disagreement does not abolish the right
of those who avoid assimilation, while begrudgingly enduring coexisting.
The Dees’ of this world want you to be consumed with a false guilt and an
asinine self destructive surrender. Their version of tolerance is despotism
disguised in a sugar coating that has a color of a clear black and white
choice. It is entirely proper and moral to exclude those who are harmful,
injurious or troublesome. Certainly no person who retains any degree of common
sense needs the Tolerance Organization to assist in making that determination.
A truly virtuous society distinguishes between forced integration and honest
acceptance. Limits upon free association are no substitute for individual
Liberty and assuredly, tolerance is no benefit when compelled. So which definition
do you accept? If you follow Dees, you need not worry or ponder your decision,
he will settle the matter. Surely, you would not want to risk being lumped
into one of those hate group tribes! Or maybe you would?
this article to a friend